Chapter V: Part 5

"And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way and said unto them, Behold we go up to Jerusalem and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chiefs and priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again." (Mat. 20 : 17-19.)

"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spoke that saying openly." (Mark 8 : 31.)

There is not a chance to refer this prediction to the esoteric teachings of Jesus, for he "spake that saying openly."

"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and after that he is killed he shall rise the third day." (Mark 9 : 31.)

"And he took again the twelve and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles, and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him; and shall spit upon him; and the third day he shall rise again." (Mark 10 : 32, 33.)

"The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day." (Luke 9 : 22.)

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked and spitefully entreated and spitted upon; and they shall scourge him, and put him to death, and the third day he shall rise again." (Luke 18 : 31-33.)

These teaching are so plain and repeated so often that it is inconceivable that his disciples should not comprehend his meaning. If these passages had been as enigmatical as the following, there might have been some grounds for the claim of ignorance or dullness on the part of the disciples: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Mat. 12 : 40.)

But the above predictions have nothing dark or obscure about them. The time of his resurrection is always specified as the third day.

None of the Disciples Looking for a Resurrection.

With these numerous predictions of his resurrection before us, let us see whether they can be made to harmonize with other statements on the subject. When immediately after the transfiguration Jesus warns his disciples not to reveal what they had seen until after he had risen from the dead, we are told that they questioned among themselves "what rising from the dead should mean." (Mark 9 : 2.)

How is it possible that such doubt and surprise could be expressed by men who had first witnessed the resurrection of Moses and Elias, and who had also seen the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus, the son of the widow of Nain and Lazarus!

Now it is plain that if they had ever witnessed these miraculous resurrections, they could not possibly have wondered "what the rising from the dead should mean." Both statements cannot be true, for if they thus wondered, it is proof enough that they had never seen the dead raised to life; and if they did not so express themselves, then the gospels are unhistorical. That they never queried in this manner among themselves is evident from the fact that the resurrection from the dead was at that time a doctrine generally accepted by the Jews. It is evident that those who undertook the embalmment of Jesus had no thought of his resurrection within forty-eight hours. But suppose it conceded that Jesus was deserted by his immediate friends, and his body handed over to Joseph and Nicodemus, who embalmed it in "a mixture of myrrh and olives about one hundred pound," possibly being ignorant of the repeated predictions of his resurrection on the third day, which were made to the disciples; still this is unavailing, as the disciples are also ignorant of any rising from the dead to take place on the third day. The women undertook the task of embalming the body of Jesus, but they seem not to have got fully prepared for the task until the third day. When his body was taken down from the cross and wrapped in linen and put in the sepulcher, "the women also which came with him from Galilee followed after, and beheld the sepulcher and how his body was laid, and they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared." (Luke 23 : 55, 56, and 24 : 1.)

"In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." (Mat. 27 : 61.)

These two writers, while not agreeing on the object of the women's visiting the sepulcher, nevertheless do agree that they did not go expecting to see the sepulcher empty.

This early visit was made ostensibly to anoint or embalm the body of Jesus. Mary Magdalene and the other women did not even dream of a resurrection--she did not come expecting to find the tomb empty, but was concerned to know how they should remove the stone from the mouth of the tomb. It is evident that if she had heard Jesus say repeatedly that on the third day after his death he would rise again, she would not have forgotten it; and if she had, she must have recollected his predictions when she found the grave empty. In fact she never once thinks of a resurrection, but when she sees the empty grave, exclaims, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him." (John 20 : 2.)

Luke says that, "As the women were much perplexed thereabout, behold two men stood by them in shining garments, and as they were afraid, and bowed themselves to the earth [people usually run away when they are frightened] they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen; remember how he spoke unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying: The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words." (Luke 24 : 5-8.)

This is evidently an afterthought, an effort to fill out an imperfect record, but the patch is too perceptible; for had it been that the women needed only to have their memory jogged to recollect the prediction of Jesus concerning his rising from the dead on the third day, we may infer that a similar reminder would refresh the memory of the eleven, but on the contrary they scouted the idea of such a thing. The women "returned from the sepulcher and told all these things unto the eleven, and the rest ... And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." (24 : 9, 11.)

Mark also says that the eleven did not believe the story of Mary Magdalene: "She went out and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not." (16 : 10, 11.)

They also had not so much as a dream of the resurrection of Jesus. They were not waiting and watching for the third day to come that they might see the predictions of Jesus fulfilled and their hearts filled to overflowing with joy at the sight. They were not at the sepulcher, as we might naturally expect. True, it was not too early for the women impelled by human love to be there with ointments and spices; but the eleven who were baptized with heavenly love (John 20 : 22), entertained not the first thought of visiting the grave. And even when the marvelous scenes witnessed by the women are clearly stated to the eleven who had heard him teach that he must go up to Jerusalem and be killed and the third day rise again--who had heard this teaching and prediction repeatedly and openly, and in the plainest language, and yet did not believe anything in it or in the report of the women--all this is simply incredible. We are forced to conclude that if they were not at the tomb on the third day, and scouted the story of the women--for "their words seemed to them as idle tales"--they had never once heard Jesus say he would rise from the dead on the third day.

Luke says, that of the eleven only Peter went to the sepulcher, and that stooping down "he saw the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed wondering in himself at that which had come to pass." (24 : 12.)

He wonders, but expresses no thought of a resurrection. The writer of the fourth gospel contradicts Luke in saying that there were two persons who went to the sepulcher on that occasion. "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulcher.... Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcher, and he saw and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." (John 20 : 3, 9, 10.)

"He saw and believed," but we are not told what he believed. He did not certainly believe in the resurrection of Jesus. "For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again." This passage is plainly legendary. It belongs to a later age when the dogma began to control the minds of Christians; for it is true that the early Christians did not insist so much upon the evidence of miracles as they did upon the prophecies. It must have been written long after that time, for it is not the "scriptures" they needed to know to be informed concerning his resurrection, but the plain language of Jesus which he had with special effort, and in an open manner uttered in their ears but a few days before. It was wholly needless for them to know the scriptures in order to recollect these prophetic predictions. Regard these statements as we may, they are certainly unhistorical. For if Jesus so frequently spoke of his death and subsequent resurrection, then it is certain that they would have remembered his words, and if they had not cherished them with faith, yet when they had heard from the women of the empty grave, they would without doubt, have recalled his predictions, and claimed their fulfillment. But they do no such thing. They said of the women's story what was probably true, that "their words seemed to them as idle tales, and [therefore] they believed them not."

The Evidence of Paul on the Resurrection of Jesus.

He gives his testimony in this form: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. And that he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then by all the Apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (1 Cor. 15 : 4-8.)

In this statement Paul does not pretend to have witnessed the event himself, but preaches it as a doctrine which he had "received." He speaks of it as a tradition, "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures."

This language betrays the influence of the dogma of a later date; for the writer in speaking of the five hundred by whom Jesus was said to have been seen says, "of whom the greater part remain unto this present [day] but some are fallen asleep." "Unto this present" [day] shows that the writer is making his record long after the event.

Paul wrote probably about twenty-five years after the date of the events he records. And the writers of the gospels also wrote at a late date. Matthew says, "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." (28 : 15.)

The phrase "until this day" points out the fact that the gospel records were not completed until long after the time of their occurrence. In addition to this, there were many gospels recording the life and doings of Jesus. "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us." (Luke 1 : 1.) "Believed among us"--he did not know, but merely believed these things. Now suppose we had these other gospels, what harmony could we expect to find among the imaginary five hundred if they had left a record of what was "most surely believed."

"He was seen by Cephas." It is significant of Paul's independence, that while the writers of the four gospels all explicitly declare that Jesus first appeard to Mary Magdalene, Paul knows nothing of such an appearance. That he makes no mention of this first appearance of Jesus is evidence that he wrote independently of others, as he said he did, and also that he wrote before the evangelists wrote. He had no honors to bestow upon women, as his writings show, and if he had ever heard of this appearance to Mary Magdalene, he concluded that it was "an idle tale." (Luke 24 : 11.)

It is noticeable also that although this doctrine is "received" as a prediction of the scriptures, yet no one is recorded in either of the gospels or writings of Paul as having seen Jesus rise from the sepulcher. Even though it is affirmed that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary had seen the angel from heaven roll back the stone from the mouth of the sepulcher, yet they did not witness any resurrection.

All that Paul "received" on this subject was the current traditions. As a Pharisee, he believed in the doctrine of a general resurrection, and it was most natural for him to accept such tradition into his belief. That he wrote under the influence of a later age, when the dogma began to assume character, is manifest in the recourse he has to scripture evidences. "And that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. 15 : 4.) But the passages usually cited as proof-predictions that Jesus should rise from the dead, when examined, cannot be regarded as Messianic at all; for the idea of a suffering Messiah was wholly foreign to the Jewish mind. The scriptures usually cited are Isaiah 53; Psalms 22 and 69; Psalms 16 : 10; Hosea 6 : 2.

As illustrating the free use made of the scriptures, we have only to compare Matthew 12 : 40 with parallel passages of Mark and Luke. Mark (8 : 11), says, "And the Pharisees came forth and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, there shall no sign be given unto this generation."

Luke (11 : 29-31) states that "when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation; they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall the Son of man be to this generation."

Matthew gives two versions of this incident, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall be no sign but the sign of the prophet Jonas." (16 : 4.) "Certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Mat. 12 : 38-41.)

Here it will be observed is an illustration of the growth of the dogma and myth in adding this reference to Jonas. And it is highly significant that the application of the myth of Jonas is wholly fanciful, as the passage referred to (Jonah 1 : 17.) has not the slightest character of prophecy. That the scriptures are evidently tortured is obvious from the fact that Jesus was only one day and two nights in the heart of the earth, and, as before said, the passage is not prophetic; besides, its varied form in the gospels plainly shows it to be a myth.

"He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, and after that he was seen by above five hundred brethren at once." But there were only eleven Apostles until after the ascension, when Matthias was elected to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Judas. "And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." (Acts 1 : 26.)

This election of Matthias took place after the ascension. He could not therefore have been seen by the "twelve" after his ascension (and there were not twelve until after the ascension), only by the "eye of faith."

That Jesus was seen by above five hundred is nothing more than naked statement. Paul does not claim to have been one of that number. This episode, moreover, is not mentioned in any of the four gospels. It is remarkable that so great an event should be passed over by other writers also, for not a trace of it can be found elsewhere. It is difficult for us to understand how this marvelous scene could so completely perish out of sight of all writers except one who was not present, but merely heard of it afterward. That Paul may have believed the story we do not deny--and that he believed that the greater part of the witnesses "remain unto this present" time. Now if these survivors remained he does not mention the names of any of them. And besides, they were not within reach of the Corinthians who might wish to hear and investigate their testimony, for the Corinthians did not accept the resurrection of Jesus as a matter of fact.

How could five hundred disciples come together immediately at one time, when some time after the ascension the number of disciples at Jerusalem was only one hundred and twenty? (Acts 1 : 15.)

We need to know something of the character of those who gave Paul this information, and the sources of their knowledge. For it is all-important to our inquiry to know from whom Paul received these traditions and what evidences his informants had of the truth of the story they told. To believe in the reality of these appearances simply because Paul states that he has "received" his information from others and believes it to be true, without inquiring as to the character of his informers, is the blindest credulity. Who were the five hundred? What did they think of the event? How did Paul or any other person know what they thought, if there were no written statements by them? Where and when did the five hundred see the risen Jesus?

"Last of all he was seen by me." In another place he says, "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9 : 1.)

Elsewhere he relates: "But when he was pleased, God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace to reveal his son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus." (Gal. 1 : 15-17.)

"For neither did I receive it from men nor was taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1 : 11.) We shall find as we proceed that Paul saw Jesus subjectively. It is quite natural to so understand his words, "reveal his son in me." Especially does this seem obvious when we remember that Paul was a man who firmly believed in visions and revelations. In relating his own experience he states this fact plainly. "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body I cannot tell--God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell--God knoweth) how that he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man to utter. Of such an one will I glory." (2 Cor. 12 : 2-4.)

In Acts there are three contradictory accounts of his seeing Jesus in a vision. "And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven. And he fell to the earth and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it will be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." (Acts 9 : 3-7.)

A second version is in this form: "And it came to pass that as I made my journey and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. And I said, Lord, what wilt thou have me do? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee of all the things which are appointed for thee to do." (Acts 22 : 6-10.)

The third account of the affair is given thus: "Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at mid-day, O king, I saw in the way alight from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, saying, in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.... Whereupon, O king, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision." (Acts 26 : 9-19.)

According to the first account the companions of Paul "stood speechless" (9 : 7); in the third they "all fall to the earth." (26 : 14.) Then again, in the first account it is said that the men "stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one." In the second it is stated that "they that were with me saw indeed the light, but they heard not the voice." These contradictions do not seem to clothe the vision of Paul with the acceptable form of harmony.

It will be observed that even in this vision Paul is not described as seeing Jesus. He sees a light and falls to the ground, and when he rises he is blind. "And they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus. And he was three days without sight." (9 : 8.)

In the continuation of this account Paul has another vision: "And it came to pass that when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste and get thee out of Jerusalem." (22 : 17, 18.)

In connection with these visions and revelations it is highly significant that Paul never claims to have seen Jesus in the flesh, and he never speaks of the resurrection as material, but as spiritual. "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." (1 Cor. 15 : 44.) "Who shall change our vile bodies that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Phil. 3 : 21.) Evidently there is no claim for seeing Jesus in the body made by Paul in any of his writings. He preaches the doctrine of the resurrection, but this doctrine he, as a Pharisee, believed before he became a Christian. Paul claims that in a vision he saw Jesus. Luke says that this was also the manner in which Mary Magdalene and the other women saw Jesus. "And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive." (24 : 2, 3.)

This gives force to the claim of Paul, that his seeing or vision of Jesus was of the same class as the visions of all the others who had seen him.

Thus, after a careful examination of the writings attributed to the immediate followers of Jesus, we find that not one of them says, "I saw Jesus rise from the grave;" or "I saw Jesus in the flesh after his resurrection." In legendary style it is frequently repeated that he "appeared" first to this and then to that one, but there is not the slightest evidence that any one saw him. And in this connection it is worthy of remark that Jesus did not appear to any persons except his friends. This gives better occasion for suspicion that the story is mythical.

"Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us who did eat and drink with him." (Acts 10 : 41.) To appear to a few private friends for one day does not seem much like bringing life and immortality to light to the whole world. The method is too narrow and exclusive. And even of these few friends not one has left the record for us of what he saw. The writers who have recorded the current traditions of their time, agree in saying that Mary Magdalene found the grave empty: further than this the writers do not corroborate one another.

How soon the resurrection of the physical body became popular we have no means of knowing. It was not certainly until some time after the writings of Paul were given to the churches, for he, as we have seen, speaks, of it as a spiritual resurrection. So also does Peter (1 Peter 3 : 13), speak of Jesus "being slain in the flesh, but made alive again in the spirit."

The legend became more and more marvelous as it spread abroad. Enthusiasm inflamed the minds of the ignorant and superstitious until the subjective visions of Paul became crystalized into objective realities. His visions, and the visions, revelations and messages of the angels of others were reduced in popular belief to historical facts.

CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT HISTORICAL BASIS.

1. No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part of the New Testament. [This assuredly would not have been the case had they been the oldest, and the foundation on which the whole was built.]

2. No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting or engraving, no sculpture or other relic of antiquity which may be looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of those gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of the second century. Even the explorations of the Christian catacombs failed to bring to light any evidence of that character.

3. The four gospels were written in Greek, and there was no translation of them into other languages earlier than the third century.

4. No manuscript of the gospels are in existence dating further back than the fourth century. Of that century, or the next, there are three or four, and some twenty or thirty, more than a thousand years old.

5. No autograph manuscript of any of the gospels has ever been known, so far as there is any authentic record, nor has any credible witness ever claimed to have seen such a manuscript. No one has ever claimed to have seen such a manuscript of either of the four gospels in the hand-writing of Luke, Mark, Matthew, or John. If the autograph manuscripts had ever existed they would have been preserved among the most sacred relics of the church.

6. During the first two centuries tradition was esteemed of more value and better evidence of the gospel history, than any written books or manuscripts.

7. The dialect in which the New Testament books were written, a sort of Hebraistic Greek, has been considered evidence of their antiquity. But this dialect prevailed three centuries after Christ, and was in full use during the second century. The same or similar Hebraisms abound in the apocryphal gospels of that age.

8. The canonical gospels were selected by the bishops from a large number then in circulation.

In taking a general review of the first hundred and seventy years of the Christian religion the first thing that strikes the mind is the dearth of material from which to construct a reliable history. It is seen at once how much must rest upon probability in its different degrees--how much must be relegated to the province of speculation. The works of the only church historian who wrote during that period, lost or destroyed the few fragments that are left being of comparatively no value--the writings of Porphyry and others who wrote against Christianity, and those of the heretic Christians, all destroyed--there remain only the works of some of the orthodox fathers, and the text of those in a mutilated and corrupted condition.

Such is the material at the hands of the historian. Of course he cannot rely implicitly upon the unsupported assertion of any such writer for the truth of any historical fact whatever. In every instance he is obliged to scrutinize carefully, and endeavor to ascertain whether any ulterior motives may have prompted whatever statement may be under consideration. If he can find none, and the fact stands uncontradicted by other writers, it is cautiously accepted. Under such circumstances progress is slow and uncertain. The most that any writer can hope to accomplish is to place in proper shape what is already known, and to establish here and there a landmark for the benefit of subsequent historians.

In conclusion, as the result of this investigation, it may be repeated that no evidence is found of the existence in the first century of either of the following doctrines: the immaculate conception--the miracles of Christ--the material resurrection. No one of these gospels is found in the epistles of the New Testament, nor have we been able to find them in other writings of the first century.

As to the four gospels, in coming to the conclusion that they were not written in the first century, we have but recorded the conviction of the most advanced scholars of the present day, irrespective of their religious views in other respects; with whom as now presented, is, How early in the second century were they composed? Discarding as inventions of the second century, having no historical foundation, the three doctrines above named, and much else which must necessarily stand or fall with them, what remains of the Christian religion? (C. B. Waite, "History of the Christian Religion to the year 200.")

The Canon.

"The infancy of the canon was cradled in an uncritical age and rocked with traditional ease. Conscientious care was not directed from the first to the well authenticated testimony of eye-witnesses. Of the three fathers who contributed most to its early growth, Irenæus was credulous and blundering; Tertullian passionate and one-sided; and Clement, of Alexandria, imbued with the treasures of Greek wisdom, was mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics.

"Irenæus agrees that the gospels should be four in number, neither more nor less, because there are four universal winds and four quarters of the world. The Word or Architect of all things gave the gospel in a four-fold shape. According to this father the apostles were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge after their Lord's ascension.

"He says, 'Matthew wrote his gospels while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and founding the church.' Such assertions show both ignorance and exaggeration.

"Tertullian affirms that the tradition of the apostolic churches guarantees the four gospels, and refers his readers to the churches of Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, etc., for the authentic epistles of Paul. What is this but the rhetoric of an enthusiast?

"Clement contradicts himself in making Peter authorize Mark's gospel to be read in the churches, while in another place he says the apostles 'neither forbade nor encouraged it.'

"The three fathers of whom we are speaking had neither the ability nor inclination to examine the genesis of documents surrounded with an apostolic halo. No analysis of their authenticity and genuineness was seriously attempted. In its absence, custom, accident, taste, practical needs, directed the tendency of tradition. All the rhetoric employed to throw the value of their testimony as far back as possible, even up to or very near to the apostle John, is of the vaguest sort. Appeals to the continuity of tradition and of church doctrine, to the exceptional veneration of these fathers for the gospels, to their opinions being formed earlier than the composition of the works in which they are expressed, possess no force.

"The ends which the fathers in question had in view, their polemic motives, their uncritical, inconsistent assertions, their want of sure data, detract from their testimony. Their decisions were much more the result of pious feeling, biased by the theological speculations of the times, than the conclusions of a sound judgment. The very arguments they use to establish certain conclusions show weakness of perception. What are the manifestations of spiritual feeling compared with the result of logical reasoning?" (Davidson on the Canon.)

Thus we have the testimony of one of the ablest and clearest minds that has ever written upon the canon which the fathers most depended upon to establish the authenticity of the small books forming it, were "ignorant," "credulous," "blundering," "passionate," "one-sided," "uncritical," "inconsistent," "possessed undue enthusiasm with contradictions;" "not possessing ability or inclination to examine;" "attempting no analysis of genuineness;" "an unreasonable apostolic reverence." "Custom, accident, taste, and the tendency of tradition taking the place of careful examination;" "a disposition to misrepresent;" "exceptional veneration of the fathers for the gospels older than the composition;" "want of data;" "their decisions the result of pious feeling based upon [incorrect] theological speculations;" "unsound judgment;" "weakness of perception;" "lack of logical reasoning." These are the characteristics of the fathers depended upon to establish the authenticity of a gospel story which has no solid foundation to rest upon and which is clearly of an apocryphal character. ("Answers to Christian Questions" pp. 69-70, by D. M. Bennett.)

"One hundred and seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed before the collection assumed a form that carried with it the idea of holy and inspired." (Davidson on the Canon, p. 106.)

"It is clear that the earliest church fathers did not use the books of the New Testament as sacred documents clothed with divine authority, but followed for the most part, at least till the middle of the second century, apostolic tradition orally transmitted." (Ibid, p. 107.)

"Their decisions (the fathers) were much more the result of pious feeling biased by the theological speculations of the times, than the conclusions of a sound judgment. The very arguments they use to establish certain conclusions show weakness of perception." (Ibid p. 124.)

"The men who first canonized them (the gospels) had no certain knowledge of their authors." (Ibid p. 127.)

"That Luke did not write the gospel of Luke." (Ibid 2, p. 25.)

"The canon was not the work of the Christian Church so much as of the men who were striving to form the church." (Ibid p. 129.)

"Professor Davidson says that the Gospel of Matthew, as we have it now could not have been written by Matthew. Intro. New Test. 1, p. 484. He says that the present Gospel of Mark was not written by Mark and that its author is unknown." (Ibid 2, p. 83, 84.)

Of John's Gospel he says:

"Its existence before 140 A. D. is incapable either of decision or probable showing. The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible.

"No certain traces of the existence of the fourth gospel can be found till after Justin Martyr, that is till after the middle of the second century." (Ibid 2, p. 520.)

The Value of Papias' Testimony.

"Suppose Papias is referring to our present gospel of Mark, what testimony have we to the authenticity of Jesus' words as contained in it? Just this: Eusebius says that Papias said that John the presbyter said that Mark said that Peter said that Jesus said thus and so." (Keeler's "Short History of the Bible," p. 19.)

Ignorance and Dishonesty of the Early Fathers.

That the charge of ignorance justly attaches to many of the fathers of the church, and that of dishonesty as well, there is abundant evidence, but a small portion of this can be given here. Mosheim, in part 2 chapter 3 of his "Ecclesiastical History," says:

"The interest of virtue and true religion suffered yet more grievously by the monstrous errors that were universally adopted in this century, and became a source of innumerable calamities and mischiefs of succeeding ages. The first of these maxims was that it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie when by that means the interest of the church might be promoted; and the second, equally horrible, though in another point of view, was "that errors in religion, when maintained and adhered to after proper admonition were punishable with civil penalties and corporal tortures." The former of these erroneous maxims was now of long standing. It had been adopted for long ages past, and had produced an incredible number of ridiculous fables, fictitious prodigies, and pious frauds to the remarkable detriment to that glorious cause in which they were employed. And it must be frankly confessed that the greatest men and the most eminent saints of this century [the fourth] were more or less tainted with the infection of this corrupt principle, as will appear evident to such as look with an attentive eye to their writings and actions. We would willingly except from this charge Ambrose, and Hiliary Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, and Jerome; but truth, which is more respectable than these venerable fathers, obliges us to involve them in the general accusation."

At another time he says, as translated by Vidal:

"At the time when he [Hermas] wrote, it was an established maxim with many Christians to avail themselves of fraud and deception, if it was likely they would conduce toward the attainment of any considerable good."

He again says:

"It was considered that they who made it their business to deceive, with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather of commendation than censure."

The French Protestant writer, Casaubon, talks in a similar way, thus:

"It mightily affects me to see how many there were in the earliest times of the church who considered it a capital exploit to lend to heavenly truth the help of their own inventions in order that the new doctrine might be received by the wise among the Gentiles. These officious lies, they said, were devised for a good end."

Le Clerc, corroborating these opinions, says:

"Dissemblers of truth are nowhere to be met with in such abundance as among the writers of church history."

M. Daille, another learned and impartial French writer, in his celebrated work, the "Use of the Fathers," says:

"We find them saying things which they did not themselves believe. They are mutually witnesses against each other, that they are not to be believed absolutely on their bare word."

In book 1, chapter 6, he states upon the authority of St. Jerome, that:

"Origin, Methodius, Eusebius, Apollonaris, have written largely against Celsus and Porphyry. Do but observe their manner of arguing, and what slippery problems they used. They alleged against the Gentiles, not what they believed, but what they thought necessary."

Jerome himself adds:

"I forbear mentioning the Latin writers, as Tertullian, Cyprian, Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hiliary, lest I should rather seem to accuse others than defend myself."

Daille adds of the fathers:

"They made no scruple to forge whole books."

An able writer in the Eclectic Review of 1814, page 179, speaks of the fathers in this way:

"When we consider the number of gospels, acts, epistles, revelations, traditions, and constitutions which were put in circulation during the first three centuries, and which are unquestionably spurious, we find sufficient reason for examining with care and receiving with extreme caution productions attributed to eminent men in the primitive church. Some of the early Christians do not seem to have possessed in some points a nice sense of moral obligation. The writing of books under false names, and the circulating of fables, were not accounted violations of duty; or, if the impropriety of such conduct was felt, the end proposed--the promotion of the Christian cause--was thought to justify the means employed for the accomplishment. (From D. M. Bennett's "Answers to Christian Questions," p. 78-80.)

Jesus Not a Historical Character.

The following very pertinent argument is made use of by the Rev. S. Baring-Gould in his "Lost and Hostile Gospels": "It is somewhat remarkable that no contemporary, or even early account of the life of our Lord exists, except from the pen of Christian writers. That we have none by Greek or Roman writers is not, perhaps, to be wondered at; but it is singular that neither Philo, Josephus, nor Justus of Tiberius, should ever have alluded to Christ or to primitive Christianity. Philo was born at Alexandria about twenty years before Christ. In the year A. D. 40 he was sent by the Alexandrian Jews on a mission to Caligula, to entreat the emperor not to put in force his order that his statue should be erected in the temple of Jerusalem and in all the synagogues of the Jews. Philo was a Pharisee. He traveled in Palestine, and speaks of the Essenes he saw there; but he says not a word about Jesus Christ or his followers. It is possible that he may have heard of the new sect, but he probably concluded it was but insignificant, and consisted merely of the disciples, poor and ignorant, of a Galilean rabbi, whose doctrines he, perhaps did not stay to inquire into, and supposed they did not differ fundamentally from the traditional teaching of the rabbis of his day."

The Spurious Passage in Josephus.

"At this time lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed he ought to be called a man]; for he performed wonderful works [he was a teacher of men who received the truth with gladness]; and he drew to him many Jews and also many Greeks. [This was the Christ.] But when Pilate, at the instigation of our chiefs, had condemned him to crucifixion, they who at first loved him did not cease; [for he appeared to them on the third day again; for the divine prophets had foretold this, together with many other wonderful things concerning him], and even to this time the community of Christians called after him, continues to exist."

That this passage is spurious has been almost universally acknowledged. One may be accused perhaps of killing dead birds, if one again examines and discredits the passage; but as the silence of Josephus on the subject which we are treating is a point on which it will be necessary to insist, we cannot omit as brief a discussion as possible of the celebrated passage.

The passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 11; Demonst. Evang. lib. 3.), but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A. D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A. D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A. D. 193), and Origen (fl. A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology, or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus in his book against Christianity introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the arguments of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He indeed distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ. (Contra. Celsus 1.)

Again the paragraph interrupts the chain of ideas in the original text. Before this passage comes an account of how Pilate, seeing there was a want of pure drinking water in Jerusalem, conducted a stream into the city from a spring two hundred stadia distant, and ordered that the cost should be defrayed out of the treasury of the Temple. This occasioned a riot. Pilate disguised Roman soldiers as Jews, with swords under their cloaks, and sent them among the rabble, with orders to arrest the ringleaders. This was done. The Jews finding themselves set upon by other Jews, fell into confusion; one Jew attacked another, and the whole company of rioters melted away. "And in this manner," says Josephus, "was this insurrection suppressed." Then follows the paragraph about Jesus, beginning, "At this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man," etc., and the passage is immediately followed by, "About this time another misfortune threw the Jews into disturbance; and in Rome an event happened in the temple of Isis which produced great scandal." And then he tells an indelicate story of religious deception which need not be repeated here. The misfortune which befell the Jews was, as he afterward relates, that Tiberius drove them out of Rome. The reason of this was, he says, that a noble Roman lady who had become a proselyte, had sent gold and purple to the temple at Jerusalem. But this reason is not sufficient. It is clear from what precedes--a story of sacerdotal fraud--that there was some connection between the incidents in the mind of Josephus. Probably the Jews had been guilty of religious deceptions in Rome, and had made a business of performing cures and expelling demons, with talismans, and incantations, and for this had obtained rich payment.

From the connection that exists between the passage about the "other misfortune which befell the Jews," and the former one about the riot suppressed by Pilate, it appears evident that the whole of the paragraph concerning our Lord is an interpolation. That Josephus could not have written the passage as it stands, is clear enough, for only a Christian would speak of Jesus in the terms employed. Josephus was a Pharisee and a Jewish priest; he shows in all his writings that he believes in Judaism.

It has been suggested that Josephus may have written about Christ as in the passage quoted, but that the portions within brackets are the interpolations of a Christian copyist. But when these portions within brackets are removed, the passage loses all its interest and is a dry statement utterly unlike the sort of notice Josephus would have been likely to insert. He gives color to his narratives; his incidents are always sketched with vigor; this account would be meagre besides those of the riot of the Jews and the rascality of the priests of Isis. Josephus asserts, moreover, that in his time there were four sects among the Jews--the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the sect of Judas of Gamala. He gives tolerably copious particulars about these sects, and their teachings, but of the Christian sect he says not a word. Had he wished to write about it, he would have given full details, likely to interest his readers, and not have dismissed the subject in a couple of lines.

It was perhaps felt by the early Christians that the silence of Josephus, so famous a historian and a Jew, on the life, miracles, and death of the founder of Christianity was extremely inconvenient; the fact could not fail to be noticed by their adversaries. Some Christian transcriber may have argued, either Josephus knew nothing of the miracles performed by Christ--in which case he is a weighty testimony against them--or he must have heard of Jesus, but not having deemed his acts, as they were related to him, of sufficient importance to find a place in history. Arguing thus, the copyist took the opportunity of rectifying the omission, written from the stand point of a Pharisee, and therefore designated the Lord as merely a wise man. (D. M. Bennett in "Jesus Christ.")

That this paragraph, concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, is not Josephus's but an interpolation, is argued from these several following considerations:

1. It is not quoted or referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century, and afterward.

2. This paragraph was wanting in the copies of Josephus which were seen by Photius, in the ninth century.

3. It interrupts the course of the narration.

4. It is unsuitable to the general character of Josephus, who is allowed not to have been a Christian.

5. If Josephus were the author of this paragraph, it would be reasonable to expect in him frequent mention of Christ's miracles; whereas he is everywhere else silent about them.

6. The word Christ or Messiah appears not in any place in all the works of Josephus, excepting two; namely, the paragraph which we have been considering, which is now in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities; and another in the twentieth book of the name Antiquities where is mention made of James, the brother Jesus who is called 'Christ.' (Works of N. Lardner, vol. 7, pp. 14, 15.)

EUSEBIUS.

The Father of Church History.

In referring to his work of writing a history of the church up to his own times, he says:

"We are attempting a kind of trackless and unbeaten path."

Again he says of Philo Judæus that he was a very "learned man." Among many other things which contradict this estimate, is the fact that Philo takes more than one hundred pages in showing how that dreams are sent from God.

Again, Eusebius does not say that the last works of Hegesippus, Papias and Dionysius of Corinth, contain anything concerning the canonical gospels; therefore, they contained none.

We give the opinion of a few well-known writers upon this "father of church history":

In Draper's Intellectual Development of Europe, p. 197, Bunsen and Niebuhr are quoted--the one (Bunsen) as saying that he purposely "perverted chronology for the sake of making synchronisms," and the other (Niebuhr) declaring "he is a very dishonest writer."

"Eusebius had a peculiar faculty of diverging from the truth." ("History of Christian Religion," p. 7.)

"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius, himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of religion." (Gibbon's "Rome," vol. 1, p. 493.)

"In one of the most learned and elaborate works that antiquity has left us, the thirty-second chapter of the twelfth book of his evangelical preparation, bears for its title this scandalous proposition: 'How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.'" (Gibbon's "Vindication," p. 76.)